Appeal against interim injunction restraining alienation of suit property in a title dispute arising from a disputed Land Tribunal grant. The High Court found no error in the Trial Court's discretion, dismissed the appeal, and directed expeditious disposal of the suit within one year.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.546 OF 2023 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI P. VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS S/O LATE PUTTAPPA R.AT NO. 404, OLD KEB OFFICE ROAD, KADUGODI BENGALURU-5600067
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI GANGADHARAIAH A N, ADVOCATE) AND:
Digitally signed by SHARANYA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR. B PARTHA SARATHI REDDY S/O LATE B SATYA NARAYANA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS OFFICE AT H N 8-2-293/82/1/47/C PLOT NO.47C, MLA COLONY BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD TELANGANA-500033
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI NAGA REDDY V, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R3)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT.09.12.2022 PASSED ON IA NO.4 IN O.S.NO.161/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties.
09.12.2022 passed on I.A.No.4 in O.S.No.161/2019
wherein the plaintiffs have invoked the provision under
Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC seeking temporary injunction restraining defendant No.4 from selling or creating any 3rd party rights over schedule A property till the disposal of the suit. It is contended in the plaint that plaintiff No.1 is the absolute owner and in possession as it was granted to his father, who died instate, but by creating sale deed, defendant No.4 tries to create third party rights over the said property. Hence, filed the suit for the relief of declaration and inter alia sought for the relief of temporary injunction restraining defendant No.4 from alienating or creating any third party rights over A schedule property.
NC: 2024:KHC:8771 MFA No. 546 of 2023
suit schedule ‘A’ property. The Trial Court taking into note
of the pleadings of the parties framed the following points:
available on record answered all the points in favour of the plaintiffs and granted the relief of temporary injunction as sought in I.A.No.4. It is not in dispute that there is a dispute between the parties with regard to grant made by the Land Tribunal and based on the Land Tribunal order, khatha has been changed and the order of the Land Tribunal has been questioned by the vendor of the appellant herein before the Assistant Commissioner and
the Assistant Commissioner allowed the said RRT
proceedings and set aside the earlier entries made in the revenue records based on the Land Tribunal order and the order of the Assistant Commissioner is also questioned before the Special Deputy Commissioner by respondent Nos.1 to 3 and the same was allowed and the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner was challenged before this Court by the vendor of the appellant and also the appellant in the writ petition and this Court in the writ petition proceedings directed the concerned to dispose of the same within a period of three months and the same is not yet decided and during the pendency of the writ petition, respondent Nos.1 to 3 have also filed a suit in O.S.No.161/2019 and the Trial Court taking into note of the fact that order dated 11.12.1981 passed by the Land Tribunal with regard to the grant is in dispute and certain entries are made based on the order of the Tribunal. When issue is with regard to the title is concerned between the parties and when the suit is filed for the relief of declaratory relief, the Trial Court taking into note the said
facts, granted the relief only in respect of not to alienate the suit schedule ‘A’ property, hence, the order of the Trial Court is also in order to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and same was taken note of by the Trial Court while granting the interim relief of temporary injunction and exercised its discretion.
contend that the very document of Form Nos.7 and 10 itself, the case number has been incorporated and it does not have signature of the members and President of the alleged grant committee and further contended that no such proceedings was taken place. When the plaintiffs seek the relief of declaration, it is the burden on the plaintiffs to prove their case by producing relevant documents before the Court. When the plaintiffs are also claiming right over the suit schedule property based on the order passed by the Land Tribunal and when defendant No.4 had purchased the very same property, the issue involved between the parties before the Trial Court is for
the relief of declaration. When such being the case, instead of considering the material available on record on merits, the Trial Court passed an order preventing the appellant herein in alienating or creating any third party right. The counsel for the appellant also would vehemently contend that the appellant will give undertaking before the Court stating that he will not alienate the property but a relaxation and modification may be made with regard to the order passed by the Trial Court and he may be permitted to pledge the property and avail loan. The said submission cannot be accepted since the said submission
is nothing but in other way creating a charge on the property by availing loan and the same again leads to multiplicity of proceedings. Hence, I do not find any error in the order passed by the Trial Court since the relief is also sought for declaration and inter alia sought for the relief of not to alienate the property. If the property is alienated when the issue involved between the parties is with regard to their title, it will lead multiplicity of
NC: 2024:KHC:8771 MFA No. 546 of 2023
proceedings. Hence, I do not find any merit in the appeal
to reverse the finding of the Trial Court.
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
The suit is of the year 2019 and the issue involved between the parties is only with respect to the grant and claim is also with regard to the title between the respective parties. Hence, it is appropriate to direct the Trial Court to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible not later than one year from today.
Sd/JUDGE
SN
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Trial Court rightly granted temporary injunction restraining defendant No.4 from alienating the suit schedule 'A' property pending disposal of the declaration suit?
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri P. Venkatesh
Sri C.K. Prasad
Mrs. C. Chitra
Mrs. Chetana
M/s Leonard Constructions
Venepally Swaruparani
H.P. Sandesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
